Mantle signature opinions

[mcgwirecom]

hi guys, can I get a consensus on this Mantle?

[CMIZ5290]

The mantle part especially doesn't look quite right.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by mcgwirecom

hi guys, can I get a consensus on this Mantle?

Hey Randall,
How's it going?
What's written on the rest of the ball. Is this a 500 HR hitter theme ball?
From your photo I see other writing...

[perezfan]

Does not look good to me either. I would keep away from this one.

[GrayGhost]

Doesn't look quite right to me either.

[mcgwirecom]

Thanks I didn't have much hope for it but I really can't tell a good Mantle from a bad one, even side by side. Not sure what the trick is.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Piece of garbage. Not even close. That's one of the Mantle-type forgeries that were sold by the Home Shopping shows during the "Operation Bullpen" era.

[mcgwirecom]

Okay how about this one?

[bigtrain]

Randall, I agree. I can't tell the difference. Wish someone would point out what to look for.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by mcgwirecom

Okay how about this one?

100% Mickey. I won't go into detail but there are major differences in the two autographs which stick out like a sore thumb.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Below is your typical Mickey Mantle forgery "authenticated" by the now defunct GAI with the cert signed by Mike Baker.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mickey-Mantle-si...item230ee1d14b

PTFARMER.jpg

[CMIZ5290]

I tend to agree with christopher on the second one being the real deal. If it is a forgery, it's a good one.

[mcgwirecom]

I am just trying to get a feel for what is wrong with it. I am not contending any opinions as I surely am no Mantle expert. To me they looked pretty close except for maybe the length of the flags on the M's.

[CMIZ5290]

The "mantle" part of the sigs is clearly different

[CMIZ5290]

Look at the letter "n" in mantle, substantial difference.

[mr2686]

I have several Mantle autos that I got in person, but I still have had problems over the years telling the good from the bad. Funny though, now that I'm looking at some of these bad ones, there does seem to be some tell tale signs that seem kinda obvious. I think part of the problem, at least with me, is that I get kinda caught up looking at the M's and it's almost like I'm locked in and can't see the rest.

[khkco4bls]

that looks real to me to. the N in mantle very hard to forge that different slant

[Fuddjcal]

I agree with Truth that the first ball is a terrible forgery and the 2nd one is authentic. My reasoning on the "authentic" ball is that the way the "M" in Mantle attaches or interacts with the "a". The M in Mantle tends to "flick upward" not with pressure, but with a natural motion of going from M to Ma.Notice in the fake, it is very labored in that area and most time it is a clear stopping starting motion, not even in the right place. The fact that the M's don't look right at all on the first ball and the c is pointing up. (Mickey's rarely pointed up, but in the forgeries, they look like they say "Milkey". Occasionally, he would not curve the c fully, but it still looks nothing like these forgeries.

The n in the forgeries are also terrible and the appear to say Mauntle.

Now in the real thing ball #2, Notice the way the M goes with the Ma. It was also rare for him to strike through the half moons. He normally came right to the exact spot and then transfered a drop of ink there. Still from what you can see # 2 looks Real #1 is not close.

Now for the GAI PICTURE.......

[Fuddjcal]

So here's what a real signature looks like on that same picture. This one doesn't have a cert, but it is very easy to see this one is authentic.

Notice how it is right on the sweet spot of the photo. Notice the formation of the M's and the flow, size and where it is on the photo. Notice the way there is a little flick where the M goes into the a naturally. The c is rounded and not pointing up. Also notice how the half moons end with a little dab of ink. There are other things too that I just can't muster going into. Do it for yourself and you can be an expert in 2 weeks.

There are some authentic ones to that "don't flick" from the "M" to "a", but this is one area I always focus on. It's much easier for me to see the authentic vs. forgery, Not 100%, but 97% isn't bad?

[jb217676]

Here's a great sig. that I got in person.

[scmavl]

What about the occasional "loop" at the end of the half moons? Were these more prominant later?

Example (not mine):

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

There are some authentic ones to that "don't flick" from the "M" to "a", but this is one area I always focus on. It's much easier for me to see the authentic vs. forgery, Not 100%, but 97% isn't bad?

cool analysis chuck...you got me looking at my own mantle. i see the "flick" on the Ma and other signs of authentic...but my Mantle looks a little like Mauntle

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

cool analysis chuck...you got me looking at my own mantle. i see the "flick" on the Ma and other signs of authentic...but my Mantle looks a little like Mauntle

so it does, but not as pronounced. Still every other aspect including that pointy "n" look great to me. On both of those authentic samples, notice how he leaves some ink when he stops the pen on the completion of the half moons, which come up short of the top of the apex.

The "Loop" does throw a monkey wrench into some forgeries that are really good at doing that style, but of course his signature changed and there are many variations. The loops were beautiful and hard to find authentic. Here's one of my favorites with the loop from my collection. Ironically, it's the only Global certed item in my collection and rarer than a signed beatle album

[TexasLeaguer]

Here's one I got in the early 90s.

[thetruthisoutthere]

When it comes to any Mickey Mantle autograph you cannot just look at the "M" in his first and last name. One of the biggest problems the forgers have is getting the "N" right in Mantle. Most of the forgers have their "Mantle" looking like "Mautle." When you sign your own name you don't even think about it. It's a natural flow. Forgers have to "think" about what they are doing. They may work very hard at getting one part (or just one character) right but then the next character or following characters eludes them. And that's where they mess up.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

cool analysis chuck...you got me looking at my own mantle. i see the "flick" on the Ma and other signs of authentic...but my Mantle looks a little like Mauntle

This is a very good Mantle, Chuck. The forgers can't get this particular Mantle right. The forgers Mantle always looks like "Mautle."

[Mr. Zipper]

Hi folks:

Newbie here... by way of introduction my name is Steve and I've been collecting about 20 years. Mantle has always been somewhat of a struggle for me because it's so hard to assemble a large body of KNOWN authentics to "train the eye." This discussion has been very enlightening.

I just learned that one of my Mantles is not good and now am concerned about a second.

Here's one Richard Simon gave the thumbs down. It passes the litmus tests discussed here, but there must be something else...



Here's the one I am now concerned about. I purchased this in 2000 from a show dealer and it came with a COA stating it came from Gloria Rothstein (NY show promoter). It is on photostock that appears to be from the 80s. Previously, I would have bet almost anything it was good, but it doesn't have the "flicks" discussed here. The "c" and the "n" seem to be okay though.



It compares favotably to this PSA autehticated piece of the same pose.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Mickey-Mantle-si...item336343f165

Thoughts?

Thanks!

[Fuddjcal]

boy, those are tough

I guess it must have more to do with things I don't know how to qualify. The first one certainly looks better than the second. I would trust Richards opinion probably over just about anybody, so he knows something about these versions, which appear much better than the ones we were discussing?

I think it has to do with the "n" (no point) on either one of them. On the second one, the "antle" is too low in my opinion and I really don't like the "Man".

If those are forgeries, that really shows you what we are up against. These are a different breed than the blatent fakes which are really easy to see. I think I would be a sucker for the first one. The 2nd I would not bid on, even though in my mind, it "might" be authentic, based on what I feel are really good "Mickey's", but the Mantle is fairly messy, so I would pass.

I will be on the look out for more of these sytles to see if PSA or JSA has certed any of these??? Thanks for posting those. FUDD

[Mr. Zipper]

Here's what has me puzzled (among other things)...

Both of these were purchased about 10 years ago. At the time, it was 5/6 years after Mantle's death and the autograph still wasn't that expensive and it was in good supply.

Were Mantle fakes THAT sophisticated at that time period? I know there has always been sloppy obvious fakes, but REALLY good ones at that time?

[chaddurbin]

it's a catch-22 with those that know what to look for. if they point it out, that just gives the scammers more knowledge to work with. so i understand why people can be tight-lipped about these things.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

it's a catch-22 with those that know what to look for. if they point it out, that just gives the scammers more knowledge to work with. so i understand why people can be tight-lipped about these things.

Finally! Someone understands.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by JBirkholm

Finally! Someone understands.

I guess I is a moron, because I don't understand. I think there should be as much out there on the subject as possible and "tight lipped" cricket chirpers who know about all these scams and what to look for say too little too often.

Crooks are everywhere, that doesn't mean we should give them a free ride and not edumacate lowly collectors like Fudd. That's why you will never see an authenticator chime in on this subject. While I respect Jodi's experience and opinions immensely and see his point, I will continue to spew what very little learned knowledge I have because frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about any of the forgers. If they want to forge, let them. You can't control criminals, but you can educate collectors. If you can stop one person from buying a forgery, it's worth it in my opinion. You have yours....So I guess you won't be sharing any of your vast knowledge on the subject? I don't see Richard either and/or Shelly, so what you say makes sense to them too obviously. Frankly, I'm not buying the Clam up approach. How has that worked out for the industry???? FUDD

[mcgwirecom]

I can see both sides of the coin. If you are an authenticator why would you give out free opinions? Thats like giving away free product. But sometimes when you sit back and see people asking for an opinion and you see the same guys always saying "no good" but with no explanation it makes you scratch your head. It's easy to say no good, but people like to know why. Especially if it looks really similar to a good signature.

I collect McGwire items and after Operation Bullpen I got tapped by some auction houses to look at their McGwire items because this was before PSA/DNA and most authenticators just did vintage stuff. When people found out I could authenticate his signature I would get emails all the time. Is this good? Is that good? Trouble was, 9 out of 10 items were on Ebay and I was watching them to bid on them. So basically when I would say it was good I had another guy bidding against me. It's a double edged sword! LOL